Bail in UPI fraud cases: grounds and conditions

By Advocate Panchanand Shaw, Bar Council of West Bengal · Published 4 Nov 2026 · Court process

Bail in a UPI fraud case is decided less by sympathy than by the sections named in the report and by the money trail. Where the case rests on cheating under section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - the limb that replaced section 420 of the Indian Penal Code - bail is discretionary, because that offence is non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. Where the case rests only on sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which carry a maximum of three years, the offence falls in the bailable range and release is a matter of right.

Three different applications are possible and they are not interchangeable. Regular bail before the court trying the case is governed by section 480 of the BNSS, 2023. Anticipatory bail, taken before or at the point of apprehension, is governed by section 482. Bail before the Court of Session or the High Court, in any non-bailable case, is governed by section 483. Choosing the wrong forum wastes the most valuable weeks of a case, because custody is counted from arrest and the remand clock runs regardless.

The provisions that decide bail

Section 480 of the BNSS, 2023 allows a police officer or a Magistrate to grant bail in a non-bailable offence where there appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty, but not where there appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It also gives the court a discretion, well settled in practice, to release a person under eighteen, a woman, or a person who is sick or infirm, where that is appropriate.

Section 482 governs anticipatory bail. Its purpose is to protect a person who apprehends arrest, and the application is made before the Court of Session or the High Court. The section also contains a specific provision about a person who has been declared a proclaimed offender, and about offences under the laws dealing with money laundering and similar special statutes. Where the investigating agency has already filed a charge sheet, the practical value of anticipatory bail falls sharply, because the protection is aimed at the stage of apprehension.

Section 483 preserves the special power of the Court of Session and the High Court to grant bail in any non-bailable offence, and to impose conditions. It is the route used where the Magistrate has refused bail, or where the offence is grave enough that the accused wants the matter heard by a superior forum from the start. Section 187 of the BNSS, 2023 governs production and remand and contains the default-bail rule: where the investigation is not complete within sixty days, or ninety days for offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years or more, the accused becomes entitled to release on bail if he furnishes bail.

How the charges are framed decides more than the bare facts do. A first information report in a payment fraud usually names both the BNS and the IT Act, because the inducement was made over a phone call or a messaging application and the money moved through a payment system. If the IT Act limb is dropped at the charge sheet stage and only sections 66C or 66D remain, the maximum punishment is three years, the offence is bailable, and the whole character of the bail enquiry changes. That is why an accused should read the charge sheet closely and, where appropriate, invite the court to apply the classification recorded in the First Schedule to the BNSS, 2023 to the exact limb cited.

Three kinds of bail and where to apply

Regular bail is the ordinary route and is usually heard by the Magistrate who has jurisdiction over the police station. Anticipatory bail is used where the accused has not yet been arrested and has reason to fear that a complaint will be filed. Sessions or High Court bail is used where a Magistrate has refused, or where the gravity of the allegations warrants a superior forum. In all three, the application is supported by an affidavit, and the court is entitled to record conditions.

Remand, custody and the sixty-day rule

Custody does not wait for the bail application. Under section 187 of the BNSS, 2023, when a person is arrested and the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours, he must be produced before a Magistrate, who may authorise detention in police or judicial custody in stages, with a total of fifteen days of police custody available during the initial forty or sixty days of the whole detention period. This is why a bail application is often filed alongside the first production, rather than after it.

The same section creates a statutory entitlement that accused persons routinely overlook. Where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years or more, detention cannot be authorised beyond ninety days; for any other offence, the limit is sixty days. On the expiry of that period, if the investigation is still incomplete, the accused is entitled to be released on bail on furnishing bail. That entitlement does not depend on the merits of the case at all, and it has to be claimed promptly, because the courts have taken the view that it can be lost if not pressed at the right stage.

The remand stage is also where the first judicial impression is formed. What the investigating officer tells the Magistrate about the accused's role, the amount involved and the money trail often colours every later bail application. An accused who is unrepresented at that first production may find that an early, harsh note is carried forward. It is worth having counsel present at the very first production, when the police seek custody.

What the court actually weighs

In a payment fraud the court looks first at the amount and the manner. A single disputed transfer of a modest sum, where the parties knew each other, is treated very differently from a case involving a spoofed payment interface, a mule account network, or a series of complaints against the same account. The court then looks at the accused's role: whether he is alleged to be the person who received the money, the person who induced the transfer, or the person who supplied the bank account. Custody is far more difficult to resist for the alleged organiser than for a first-time accused whose account was used without his knowledge.

Courts also look at whether the accused is the beneficiary or an intermediary. A person whose bank account received the money is often the easiest to identify and the easiest to arrest, but his role may be limited to lending an account, a fact that can be established through his own transaction history and device records. Conversely, the person who created the spoofed interface or the fake application may never appear in the money trail at all. The assessment of the accused's actual role is therefore a factual exercise, and it is his own bank and device records that carry the most weight at the bail stage.

The other standard factors are the accused's antecedents, whether he has roots in the community, whether he is likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and whether the investigation is at a stage where his release would defeat it. Because digital evidence is fragile and easily deleted, courts are particularly alert to the risk of interference in cyber cases. Conditions restricting contact with witnesses, and requiring the surrender of devices or passports, are common for that reason.

Conditions a court commonly imposes

1. Attendance at the investigating officer as and when required, to answer questions and be available for identification.
2. Surrender of the passport, particularly where the accused has connections abroad or the co-accused is outside India.
3. No contact with the complainant or witnesses, directly or through social media, which preserves the integrity of the evidence.
4. Deposit of the disputed amount or security, in appropriate cases, though a court will not accept the deposit as a substitute for custody where the offence is grave.
5. Acknowledgement of the electronic record and no deletion of devices, accounts or messages relevant to the investigation.

Conditions must be reasonable, and a condition that is so onerous that it effectively denies bail can be challenged under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 before the Court of Session or the High Court. The settled position is that bail is the rule and custody the exception, but that the rule is applied with particular care in offences that harm the economy at large.

A condition requiring the deposit of money is contested in practice. The settled principle is that a court granting bail should not impose a condition that amounts to pre-trial recovery of the disputed sum, because that would let a criminal court do what a civil court is meant to do after a trial. Where the accused volunteers a deposit, the court may accept it, but a demand for the full amount as the price of liberty is ordinarily vulnerable to challenge.

Mistakes accused persons make

• Applying to the wrong forum. An anticipatory bail application in the wrong court simply loses time; the arrest may happen while it is pending.
• Not pressing the sixty or ninety day entitlement. The right to release under section 187 of the BNSS, 2023 must be claimed in time.
• Speaking to the investigating officer informally. Statements made casually can be used against the accused later.
• Assuming the IT Act charges are trivial. Even where only sections 66C and 66D are invoked, the BNS cheating charge is usually added, and it is non-bailable.
• Ignoring the civil dimension. A parallel recovery claim can affect the court's view of whether the accused is ready to compensate.

When to involve a lawyer

Bail in a UPI fraud case turns on documents: the first information report, the transaction trail, the accused's bank statements, and the record of any earlier complaints. A cyber crime lawyer in Kolkata can read the report against the First Schedule to identify which limbs are actually bailable, prepare the anticipatory or regular application with the right annexures, and resist conditions that go beyond what the case requires. If you are the person accused, see the bail page; if you are the complainant and want to understand the parallel criminal process, the cyber crime lawyer in Kolkata page explains the practice areas.

Frequently asked questions

Information for general guidance only and not legal advice. Provisions cited follow the Information Technology Act 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Related articles

• Bail in credit card fraud cases: grounds and conditions
• Appealing a UPI fraud case: grounds and timelines
• Which police station handles UPI fraud in Kolkata
• First 24 hours after UPI fraud: what to do right now
• UPI fraud and company liability under the IT Act
• UPI fraud against an NRI: jurisdiction and enforcement

Cyber crime lawyer in your city · Bank account freeze help · Contact